The Rewrite Obsession: Is Rust's Core Utils Rewrite Symptom of Tech's Hype Problem?

The recent announcement that Ubuntu will adopt a Rust-based rewrite of the GNU Core Utils (coreutils-rs) has ignited fierce debate within the developer community. This seemingly technical decision highlights a deeper, more troubling trend: the industry's growing fixation on rewriting established, battle-tested systems in new languages, often driven by hype rather than demonstrable need.


alt="Article illustration 1"
loading="lazy">

GNU Core Utils (`ls`, `cp`, `mv`, `cat`, etc.) are the bedrock of Unix-like systems. Written primarily in C and refined over **30+ years**, they are renowned for their **extreme efficiency, reliability, and remarkably low vulnerability history**. Their performance is critical – some utilities execute *hundreds of times per second*; minor regressions impact entire systems. So, why replace them? Proponents cite Rust's memory safety guarantees as a primary motivator. Yet, critics argue this addresses a problem that **doesn't materially exist for Core Utils**. "GNU Core Utils has been battle tested and proven to be reliable, efficient, effective and most importantly secure," observes developer Dayvi Schuster. "It had basically never had any major security vulnerabilities in its entire existence."

The Allure of the Shiny New: Hype vs. Impact

The `coreutils-rs` project exemplifies a broader pattern – **'shiny object syndrome'** in tech. Developers are naturally drawn to novelty: new languages promise fresh paradigms, communities, and perceived solutions to longstanding pain points. Rust, with its emphasis on safety and modern tooling, is a prime example. This enthusiasm, however, can morph into **'language evangelism'** – a zealous drive to rewrite everything in the favored language, regardless of necessity. "We seem to be more interested in trying out the latest and greatest languages and frameworks than actually solving real problems," Schuster contends. The psychological pull is strong: creating something new in a trendy language feels like progress and is often more stimulating than maintaining mature systems.

Performance Realities and the Value Question

Technical realities add weight to the skepticism. Extensive benchmarks consistently show that highly optimized C/C++ code, like GNU Core Utils, represents a **performance ceiling Rust often struggles to match, let alone exceed**. The *best-case* scenario for `coreutils-rs` is achieving performance parity with its decades-optimized C counterpart. This raises the fundamental question: **What problem is actually being solved?** If the outcome is, at best, a tool that functions identically with similar performance, but introduces new codebases to maintain and potential compatibility risks, where is the tangible value for end-users or system stability? The rewrite consumes significant effort for potentially marginal, or even negative, net gain.

Beyond Core Utils: A Systemic Issue

This phenomenon isn't isolated to systems programming:

  • Web Development: The cycle from PHP-style server rendering, to thick client SPAs, and back towards React Server Components/SSR mirrors a constant churn.
  • APIs: The wholesale shift from REST to GraphQL solved specific data-fetching issues for some, but introduced significant complexity and new problems for many others.
  • Architecture: The microservices/microfrontends craze led to unnecessary fragmentation in projects where a monolith remained more practical.

"We too often abandon tried and true solutions... without considering whether they actually solve any real problems or improve our workflows," Schuster notes.

Recalibrating Priorities: Problem-Solving as the North Star

Innovation is vital. New languages *do* bring valuable perspectives – Rust's safety guarantees are transformative for *new* systems software vulnerable to memory issues. However, **adoption must be driven by problem-solving, not hype.** Before embarking on a rewrite or adopting a new framework, developers and tech leaders must critically ask:

  1. What specific, measurable problem does this solve? (Is the existing solution genuinely broken or inadequate?)
  2. What are the tangible benefits vs. the costs? (Performance, stability risk, maintenance burden, developer ramp-up time).
  3. Is this driven by a genuine technical need, or by novelty and community enthusiasm?

"Engineering isn’t about what’s trendy," Schuster concludes, "it’s about what works, what matters, and what actually makes a difference." The coreutils-rs debate serves as a stark reminder: true progress is measured by the problems we solve, not the hype we chase. Before rewriting the foundations, ensure you're building something better, not just something new.

Source: Adapted from analysis by Dayvi Schuster on dayvster.com.